Because, at the very end, he who has the most toys wins. Seriously, I like plinking in the smaller 9mm. I has nothing to do with the 9mm round versus 223. I agree, 223 is superior round as a general statement.

I've found Bushmaster good in customer support - they always tried to correct any error. I like their quality and I think they would do a good job if they put their mind to it. Obviously, clips (cost & availability) are an issue.Conversly, I don't find gun companies very responsive to customer demands or availability of new products. It's like pulling teeth for new stuff or just to access information: we have it, but it's not in print or published - just imagine if there were no forum ... we'd be in the dark.

Kurt if you're still following this, and don't mind explain yon billet lower. I assume this is a lower that does'nt have the full .223 mag well, but one cut/broached exclusively for the M3 mag? Well, that probably won't ever fly. What about SOCOM they have a mag block for the M3 mags?

2: Sound suppression. Subsonic 9mm is cheap, easy to come by, and it will actually supress decently You can suppress supersonic .223/5.56mm, but it's still on the loud side.

Why not go 45 Acp then? Not as cheap, but it's already subsonic and punches a bigger hole.

Because it negates the cost savings of #1.

However, something I should have realized when I posted, was that any complete 9mm firearm produced by Bushmaster would not be possible to silence for civilians, as it would be a post-ban gun. They could still make pre-ban uppers, etc.

Originally Posted By CIB:Kurt if you're still following this, and don't mind explain yon billet lower. I assume this is a lower that does'nt have the full .223 mag well, but one cut/broached exclusively for the M3 mag? Well, that probably won't ever fly. What about SOCOM they have a mag block for the M3 mags?

Almost...what I have in mind has more material in the magwell sidewalls, allowing a wider magwell without sacrificing structural integrity. This, in regard to unmodified GG mags.

It is not illegal to silence a post ban rifle as long as you pay the tax stamp for the silencer. I sell silencers all the time. The ban has no significance to silencers. I am using a m4-2000 by AAC on my 9mm upper and a Ranger on my 223 upper.

Originally Posted By AR-builder:It is not illegal to silence a post ban rifle as long as you pay the tax stamp for the silencer. I sell silencers all the time. The ban has no significance to silencers. I am using a m4-2000 by AAC on my 9mm upper and a Ranger on my 223 upper.

What do you think of the AAC suppressors. I live close to them and have considered getting one but didnt want to pay up with out getting some feed back on their stuff.

ATF views the noise suppressor as a Flash suppressor as well. Call the Tech Branch and ask.HighlandMac, there's a couple of really good threads about suppressors in the M16/Full Auto Forum, you might enjoy.

Originally Posted By AR-builder:It is not illegal to silence a post ban rifle as long as you pay the tax stamp for the silencer. I sell silencers all the time.

It's not illegal to silence a post-ban rifle, but it is illegal to exceed your feature count. A silencer is also a flash suppressor, and illegal on a post-ban with a detachable mag and pistol grip.

The ban has no significance to silencers. I am using a m4-2000 by AAC on my 9mm upper and a Ranger on my 223 upper.

If those are post-ban lowers with detachable mags and pistol grips, you're violating section 922(v) by assembling and possessing a post-ban 'semi-auto assault weapon'. The ban has no direct effect on silencers as NFA items, but mounting them (or even having a threaded barrel with 1/2-28 threads to mount them) is not legal for a post ban with a detachable mag and pistol grip.

Originally Posted By AR-builder:It is not illegal to silence a post ban rifle as long as you pay the tax stamp for the silencer.

If your post-ban AR has a pistol grip and a detachable magazine, then as soon as you attach a silencer you've created an illegal assault weapon. Why? Because as others have already pointed out, the BATF views sound supressors as flash supressors as well. Regardless of your tax stamp, you're illegal.

I sell silencers all the time. The ban has no significance to silencers. I am using a m4-2000 by AAC on my 9mm upper and a Ranger on my 223 upper.

It's frightening that you sell them and aren't aware you're breaking the law. I highly suggest you verify what you're doing with your post-ban rifles with the BATF before you end up in trouble.

Originally Posted By AR-builder:It is not illegal to silence a post ban rifle as long as you pay the tax stamp for the silencer. I sell silencers all the time.

It's not illegal to silence a post-ban rifle, but it is illegal to exceed your feature count. A silencer is also a flash suppressor, and illegal on a post-ban with a detachable mag and pistol grip.

The ban has no significance to silencers. I am using a m4-2000 by AAC on my 9mm upper and a Ranger on my 223 upper.

If those are post-ban lowers with detachable mags and pistol grips, you're violating section 922(v) by assembling and possessing a post-ban 'semi-auto assault weapon'. The ban has no direct effect on silencers as NFA items, but mounting them (or even having a threaded barrel with 1/2-28 threads to mount them) is not legal for a post ban with a detachable mag and pistol grip.

I agree with what you said with the feature count but what if you could drop the pistol gripand add a thumbhole stock?

Originally Posted By AR-builder:It is not illegal to silence a post ban rifle as long as you pay the tax stamp for the silencer. I sell silencers all the time. The ban has no significance to silencers. I am using a m4-2000 by AAC on my 9mm upper and a Ranger on my 223 upper.

I have seen a letter from the ATF confirming that it is ILLEGAL to mount a silencer on a POST BAN AR-15 as mentioned so many times here! I couldn't find the letter on-line but I am pretty sure it is at the link that follows...